What was the most important thing that the Labour party ever achieved in government?

Perhaps contrary to party and popular belief, it was not the creation of the National Health Service, however great an achievement that was. Much less well known is why the Labour party had an absolutely pivotal role in the great crisis of May 1940, ensuring that Britain stayed in the war and did not sue for peace.

David Cameron recently demonstrated an unfortunate amnesia, in accidentally saying that Britain was a junior partner to the United States in 1940, the year we famously fought alone. Curiously, David Miliband now joins the PM in also inadvertently rewriting the political history of 1940, this time removing his own party's crucial contribution from the record.

Tomorrow's Telegraph runs a news story based on MiliD again repeating the campaign soundbite (also used in his major King Solomon Academy speech last month) about Labour's tendency to be consigned to opposition for long periods:

The Telegraph reports:


In a coded message that a vote for anyone else risks consigning the party to the wilderness, he pointed out that after defeat in 1931, Labour was out of power for 14 years. It was in opposition for 13 years after 1951, and for 18 years after 1979.


Next Left has already set out why this soundbite offers a selective and exaggerated reading of Labour's history. Miliband cites 1931 and 1951 while choosing to ignore the return to government four years after the 1970 defeat. Debatable perhaps. Where this clearly gets the facts wrong is in forgetting that Labour was back in government nine years after 1931. (It is difficult to complain about the party taking 14 years to win an election, given that no general election was held for a full decade after 1935).

***

What is not well known about 1940 is how much Labour's presence in government mattered. Winston Churchill would have lost the argument inside government for Britain fighting on if he had not had staunch Labour support for that policy.

Labour can not be considered a junior partner in the 1940 Coalition, helping to make up the numbers to create a public unity message. The party dominated much of the coalition, especially the home front. And that Labour's Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood had two seats in the War Cabinet of five - alongside Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and Winston Churchill - and made two absolutely crucial interventions.

The first came at a meeting of those five on May 9th 1940, after the famous Norway debate and the day before any Coalition was formed: "Attlee and Greenwood were present at the outset to make it plain that Labour would not serve under Chamberlain", as Peter Hennessy writes in his excellent 'Never Again' history. Up to that point, Chamberlain believed he could remain as PM in a National Government, or could at least secure the succession for Halifax. Labour's insistence meant a change of Prime Minister on 10th May 1940 (though it is likely that the party would have served under whichever of Churchill or Halifax that the Tories or the Palace chose).

An even more crucial Labour intervention came at the end of the month - with the War Cabinet split over whether Britain should fight on, or seek a negotiated peace with Hitler. Despite the failure of their pre-war appeasement policy, both Halifax and Chamberlain remained deeply sceptical of the "never surrender" approach which has now become the stuff of Churchillian national legend, with a stark battle between Halifax and Churchill was finally resolved on 28th May 1940.

This is Peter Hennessy's account in the splendid 'Never Again', the best book on the great Labour 1945-51 government:


At least one member of the War Cabinet thought that disaster and grief might be avoided if the British took up the Italians' offer to mediate as a step towards negotiated peace. He was Lord Halifax. 'We must not ignore the fact' Halifax told his colleagues, 'that we might get better terms before France went out of the war and our aircraft factories were bombed than we might get in three months time'.

Churchill would have none of it ... Halifax persisted ... Chamberlain, a sick man but still a member of the War Cabinet, kept the old appeasement duo in business by saying he didn't see 'what we should lose if we openly said that, while we would fight to the end to preserve our independence, we were ready to consider decent terms if such were offered to us. Churchill countered with the view that the chances of being offered decent terms were a thousand to one against, and 'national which went down fighting rose again, but those which surrendered tamely were finished'

At this stage, it was two for mediation, one against. Everything would turn on the Labour members of the War Cabinet, Attlee and Greenwood. They did not hesitate. Attlee backed Churchill unequivocally. If negotiations began 'we should find it impossible to rally the morale of the people'. Greenwood said the industrial areas of Britain (which returned a preponderance of Labour MPs) 'would regard anything like weakening on the part of the government as a disaster.

All in all, it took two hours to reach the decision to fight on; the most crucial two hours in modern Cabinet history"


It was afterwards that Churchill made his famous speech to the full Cabinet that evening, recounted by Andrew Marr in his account of the 1940 Cabinet crisis. (BBC video clip

The Government announced today it is to press ahead with plans to privatise the Royal Mail – describing the action as “urgent”. A number of recommendations have been given to the Coalition from the former deputy chairman of Ofcom, Richard Hooper, with business secretary Vince Cable insisting the measures had to be taken becuase of a reduction in the amount of mail sent, poor investment down the years and a lack of efficiency.

Dr Cable said:

“We will come forward with new legislation in the autumn. It will draw heavily on Hooper’s analysis and recommendations and the government’s wider objectives, including the need for employees to have a real stake in the future of the business.”

Speaking out against the privatisation proposals this afternoon, former London mayor Ken Livingstone said he completely disagreed with the Government pursuing cuts to the service, adding:

“I am fully committed to the Royal Mail staying in public hands. I will campaign vigorously with the CWU on the Keep the Post Public Campaign.”

Labour leadership candidate Ed Balls, meanwhile, said that the Royal Mail should stay in public ownership, warning the consequences of privatisation could be disastrous:

“But the case for privatising or selling off parts of the Royal Mail has not been made. With the economy so uncertain it’s unlikely to fetch a fair price and the taxpayer may still be expected to carry the burden of Royal Mail’s pension deficit – a massive public handout to whoever bought the company.

“Private investors might cherry-pick the most lucrative parts of the business and if rival postal firms bought Royal Mail, a conflict of interest would exist. And the result could one day see the end of the current universal service and the post office network itself – a disaster for all who rely on the post, especially pensioners and people in more remote areas.”

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) also warned that the cost to customers using postal services would increase. In March, the pensions deficit was reported to be around £8billion. Billy Hayes, general secretary of CWU, added that the service’s assets are worth in the region of £26 billion.

As Left Foot Forward reported earlier in the year, privatisation has been shown to raise costs, undermine the public service ethos and lead to two-tier workforces. TNT, who wanted to buy a stake in Royal Mail last year, threatened to sack 10,000 of its staff if they didn’t accept a 10 per cent pay cut – leaving many to wonder whether this will be a sign of things to come.

Northern Ireland

• It was feared that the UUP leadership race could tear the party apart.

• It emerged that Bill Clinton would be visiting Northern Ireland next month.

• An 8-year-old boy discovered a pipe bomb outside an Antrim Primary School.

• UUP Deputy Leader, Danny Kennedy called for changes to the law to prevent Sinn Fein taking up the position of First Minister.

• DUP MP and MLA, Jeffrey Donaldson said that talks to secure compensation from the Libyan government for victims of IRA terrorism were “making progress”.

• The Director General of MI5 highlighted the scale of the threat posed by dissidents.

• Northern Ireland’s Lord Chief Justice warned, “Any efficiencies or cuts must be implemented in a thoughtful and appropriate way so as not to undermine the system of justice.”

• First Minister, Peter Robinson warned his Ministers not to play party politics with the impending cuts.

• It was reported that one of the Army’s most senior counter-explosives officers was being recalled from Afghanistan to help combat the threat from dissidents.

• Public sector union, NIPSA argued that public sector job losses need not be an inevitable consequences of the spending review.

• Northern Ireland Secretary, Owen Paterson warned that he would reappoint the Parades Commission if Northern Ireland’s parties did not come up with a replacement.

• Sinn Fein MLA, Mitchell McLaughlin said that cuts “proposed or imposed by the British government must be challenged and resisted”.

Scotland

• Andy Coulson was called on to provide evidence in the perjury trial of former Scottish Socialist Party Leader, Tommy Sheridan.

• Finance Secretary John Swinney warned of £3.7 billion of cuts over four years.

• Labour were 10 points ahead of the SNP in a new poll.

• Scotland on Sunday revealed that Conservative HQ had all but shut out the Scottish Party.

• Advisers to the Pope called for him to avoid making any provocative statements when he visits Scotland later in the month.

• NUS Scotland reported that student hardship at reached “crisis levels.”

• Frank Blin, Head of PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Scotland concluded, “Personally, I think the next 12 to 18 months may be even tougher than the last. Our journey out of recession will not be a sprint – rather a long, hard road”.

• The Scottish Police Federation voiced its fears that cuts could mean 2800 fewer officers in Scotland.

• Former First Minister, Jack McConell came out to support David Miliband’s bid for Labour leader.

• SNP MP Stewart Hosie forced the Government to explain the fiasco over tax payments.

• Housing Minister, Alex Neil warned of the devastation that the ConDems cuts will do to the housing sector.

• Alex Salmond presented his Government’s final programme before the election as opposition leaders lined up to attack it and him.

• There were fears for Scottish shipbuilding jobs as the head of BAE systems revealed that the UK Government was considering cancelling a current £5.2 billion order for new aircraft carriers.

• The Government said it would consult with local authorities over a possible end to the council tax freeze.

• MSPs claimed £11.7 million worth of expenses last year.

Wales

• Welsh Labour MP, Chris Bryant, thought to have had his phone tapped by the News of the World bluntly concluded, “I simply do not believe Andy Coulson’s version of events.”

• Plaid Cymru MP, Jonathan Edwards declared, “The Parliamentary Reform Bill is a total mess.”

• Plaid Cymru called for the UK Government to provide extra economic assistance to Wales.

• The Electoral Reform Society published research indicating that the coalition’s plans to cut the number of constituencies could see Wales loose more than a quarter of its MPs.

• Welsh Conservative MPs expressed their concerns over the coalition’s proposals for a referendum on AV and plans to cut the number of constituencies.

• Private sector employment in Wales was reported to be contracting.

• Social Justice and Local Government Minister, Carl Sargent began a Wales wide tour to hear how best to protect services facing cuts.

• Research by BBC Wales suggested that the NHS in Wales faces £380 million in cutbacks by April next year.

• Labour’s leadership candidates united in expressing their concerns that Wales will feel the brunt of the coalition’s cuts.

• Over 40 charities and voluntary organisations met with First Minister Carwyn Jones to identify their priorities for the Assembly and Government.

• Plaid Cymru leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones pledged that his party conference would be used to showcase an “ambitious and radical” agenda ahead of next May’s elections.

• Finance Minister, Jane Hutt pledged that protecting universal benefits would be a priority ahead of the Government’s budget.

Quote of the Week

“It’s absolutely crazy. It’s unbelievable that innocent children should be caught up in something like this.”

St Comgall’s Primary School head teacher, Hilary Cush, responding to news that one of his 8 year old pupils had discovered a pipe bomber near the school in Antrim

But the coalition has fought a good propaganda war. Opinion polls suggest, albeit by a narrow margin, that the public feels the government is right to focus on reducing the deficit. So Labour must tread carefully. Blanket opposition to every single spending cut is unwise - it leaves us open to the charge of being ‘deficit deniers'. Labour must be serious about the need to reduce the deficit. High government debt to GDP ratios and large budget deficits are economically unsustainable and lead to large debt repayments. We should know - this is what we inherited from the Tories in 1997. But Labour must demonstrate that the coalition's cuts will not tackle these problems, but make them worse.

Labour's response should be costed efficiency savings, a package of tax increases that are proportionate and target the wealthiest and, most importantly, a growth-centred economic programme since growth not cuts are the way to cut a deficit. This point has been completely ignored by the coalition.

In June, George Osborne outlined a package of £8 billion in tax increase - almost entirely from the VAT hike - alongside over £30 billion of annual spending cuts. Labour must outline an alternative position that increases the annual net tax increase, and drastically reduces spending cuts. We should be looking at keeping cuts to a minimum and a model of, at worst, a 40-60 split between tax rises and spending cuts.

Firstly, I'm not sure it is credible to completely oppose the VAT rise. Alistair Darling was looking at a slight increase in VAT had we been re-elected, and raising VAT is an effective method of raising revenue. But a hike to 20 per cent is unfair since it wipes out the benefits to society's poorest created by increasing the personal allowance threshold. A small increase to 18 per cent or 18.5 per cent would raise around £2.5 billion or £5 billion respectively. However, a small increase in VAT would have to be balanced by tax rises specifically targeted at the wealthiest.

On this there are several options that we should certainly pursue. Firstly, the bank levy should be doubled, while the ‘supertax' on bankers' bonuses should be kept for this parliament.

Another option is to increase capital gains tax (CGT). The June budget increased CGT from 18 per cent to 28 per cent. However, since CGT will only hit second homes and shares, while the 10 per cent CGT tax rate for business activities was actually extended from the first £2 million to £5 million, the Treasury estimates that the net take from the CGT rise will be only £0.6 billion. Increasing CGT to the 40 per cent tax level - and resetting the CGT rate for business activities would raise an extra £2-3 billion and be both fair and proportionate.

Another possible tax rise would be a form of wealth tax, as used successfully in France and other European countries. The French model, in particular, is a good one to examine. Named the Solidarity Wealth Tax, it applies to those having assets in excess of €790,000, but is on a sliding scale, ranging from 0.55 per cent (on those with assets valued between €790,000-€1.24 million) to 1.8 per cent (on those whose assets are worth €16.04 million and over). Since the tax rates are low there is no evidence of it leading to emigration from France. However, it brings in around €4.5 billion per year - equivalent to £3.8 billion.

But the most obvious economic point is that the best and quickest way to balance the budget is to generate sustained economic growth. This cannot be done by the coalition's policy of massive public spending cuts alongside tax rises that reduce domestic consumption. This is especially true given that most other European countries, to whom the bulk of our exports go to, are taking similar measures to slash spending and reduce demand.

To do this, we should emphasise that, in the short-term, some stimulus measures are still needed. We should propose a form of British Investment Bank or National Credit Union to ensure that commercially viable businesses and individuals get the credit they are currently being denied by the banks, and encourage greater employee share-ownership. On the latter point, Labour should follow the model introduced by the Swedish Social Democrats the mid-1980s, under which workers saw a portion of their income allocated to one of five regional investment funds. Employees' representatives were guaranteed a majority on the investment boards to ensure that profits were actually used to benefit employees - either through reinvestment or improved job opportunities and conditions.

Such models, on a large scale, would mark a major shift in economic power. The result would be to redistribute wealth, and it would encourage higher productivity and growth since those most likely to further the interests of a business are its workers.

Indeed, German unions reported an absolute increase in productivity of 15 per cent following the introduction of greater employee participation, while the American Centre for Employee Ownership studied 360 companies and saw that firms with shared ownership grew between two and four times more than companies where employees owned no stock.

This idea ties in with the theme of mutualism and developing co-operatives which are rooted in the labour movement. But they are also a substantive counter to Cameron's ‘Big Society'. A ‘Big Economy', marked by diversity and de-centralisation of economic power is the perfect combination of Labour values - with an enabling state devolving power to individuals and communities.

Above all, Labour needs to get thinking, and to get real. If we allow the coalition to dictate the terms of economic debate, we, and the country, are in trouble. If we can reframe the debate to show that we are not ‘deficit deniers' but that the coalition are ‘growth deniers' then we will reclaim the economic debate.

Photo: altogetherfool 2009

Islington, despite its reputation for affluence, is the eighth poorest local authority in the country, and one of the most unequal. One side of a street is concrete council estate, the other is Grecian columns and wisteria: the haves and the have-nots living cheek by jowl. The argument against inequality advanced in Richard Wilkinson’s and Kate Pickett’s book, The Spirit Level: Why Equal Societies Almost Always do Better, resonates loudly here. That is why we were delighted when Professor Wilkinson agreed to chair The Islington Fairness Commission, which we have established to take a long, hard look at what we can do to close the gap in our borough. Over a hundred local residents turned up at the Commission’s first meeting and then even more for the second: this is an agenda for which there is clearly public appetite. We need to harness this momentum. One businessman, as a result of what he heard at the first meeting, announced that he would start an internship scheme at his company. Small steps, maybe, but Labour in Islington feels that it is really on to something.

The Commission’s remit is to explore every lever a local authority has in its possession to reduce inequality in the borough and to hardwire the council so that every action it takes is based on fairness and improving the lives of those who are least well off. The act of forming the Commission and spreading the word about it has already raised awareness of the scale and nature of the persistent poverty in our borough. When I tell better off friends who live locally that Islington is the eighth poorest place in the country, their first response is surprise, often followed by a willingness to volunteer and help make things better.

One of the Commission’s sessions is going to look at how we reduce the gap from the top down. As our local businessman and my friends’ reactions prove, there is more that those who are well off can offer, such as voluntary time, contacts and ways to break down the barriers that stop the less well off from accessing the wealth and the opportunities that they see all around them. As well as coming up with concrete policy proposals, the Commission hopes to invoke this civic spirit: doing the ‘Big Society’, not just talking about it.

This Commission must be more than a talking shop. The above ideas are good, but we need something radical for the Commission to really register and help turn around the life chances of more than a handful. One bold idea the Commission will discuss is the prospect of a Living Wage Islington – much easier said than done. Step one would have to mean the public sector in Islington getting its act together: not just paying all police, health and council staff a London living wage but all of these authorities’ sub-contractors as well. That means looking at supply chains and procurement. Then perhaps we could take the Commission out of the committee room and onto the street to campaign for a Living Wage Upper Street. And so on, until everyone in our borough gets the dignity of a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work. After all, that’s only fair, right?

The next meeting of The Islington Fairness Commission is at 7.30pm on November 2nd at the offices of Slaughter & May, One Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8YY. You can find out more about the commission here: www.islington.gov.uk/fairness

Guest post by Andy Hull, a Labour Councillor for Highbury West ward and Vice-Chair of The Islington Fairness Commission

Our guest writer is Vera Baird QC, who was solicitor general from 2007-2010, and Labour MP for Redcar from 2001-2010

When David Cameron said in April that the state’s share of the north east economy was too big, likening it to Soviet Russia, a Tory spokesperson quickly explained that this related less to public sector cuts and more to positive “rebalancing” towards the private sector. But that was during the election campaign. Osborne has since favoured 80% of cuts to 20% of tax increases.

Yesterday, Experian reported on the impact of that on the north east where 43 per cent of jobs are in the public sector. In Tees Valley, three council areas – Middlesbrough, Redcar and Hartlepool – all have very low resilience because they only have industries vulnerable to damage and closure, skill levels too low for easy transfer to other occupations, ageing populations and a weak enterprise culture.

At least 11,000 direct public sector job losses are predicted in a population of 650,000 and the sense is that more are bound to follow because of those factors.

The iron and steel industry started in Tees Valley – what Gladstone called “the Infant Hercules” of the industrial revolution. At its peak 40,000 people worked in steel while Tees Valley’s other industrial giant, the petrochemical sector, employed 30,000. But in the late 70s and 80s tens of thousands of jobs were lost rapidly from both industries.

Mrs Thatcher did nothing to stave off the unemployment that followed at a time when government intervention could have made a difference. Instead, her obsession with defeating both inflation and the unions brought public sector job cuts too, adding to the already massive economic and social damage.

The scale of that jobs fallout has, simply, never been fully reversed. This is a location which is remote from other urban areas where there is work, and there has never been sufficient other industry to fill the employment gap. Thankfully Redcar steelworks, mothballed by Corus last year, looks likely to thrive again under a new owner and the petrochemical sector is still in place. But they now employ only two or three thousand people between them.

The Labour Government created public sector jobs consistent with the grain of its policy to grow numbers of nurses, teachers and police and to deliver good public services. The Coalition overlooks Unison’s strong point that 70 pence in every pound earned by a public sector employee goes back into the private sector. The Northern Way strategy and the enterprising mindset of the North East Regional Development Agency supported the regeneration of the private sector too.

Though the north east is still the region with the highest overall unemployment, business start-ups have increased strongly in Tees Valley for the last five years, with new business survivals almost the highest in the UK. Following the mothballing of Redcar steelworks, £60M was invested by the Labour Government into a Tees Valley Industrial Programme. So far, a third of that cash has been used to generate 1200 new jobs, safeguard 1100 and to trigger 700 new businesses. The existing industrial base and skills pool are ideal for modern work in the offshore wind, bio-fuels and bio-pharmaceuticals sectors.

The area also has a magnificent coastline with great tourist potential. This summer saw a million visitors from the Tall Ships Race in Hartlepool, the Stockton Riverside festival and the international kite surfing championships on Redcar beach. It is no coincidence that the first Local Enterprise Partnership application this week was from Tees Valley, since local businesses and the public sector are hungry to advance ambitious bids for cash to start 1000 new businesses and to initiate a targeted 5% increase in the employment rate, positioning themselves for future growth.

However in 2010, 43% of Tees Valley’s employment remains in the public sector, largely because of those irreversible job losses and because of the historic lack of diversity in the private sector economy. There is no mountain of public sector jobs. It is the absence of significant new industry that makes the percentage so high.

Osborne’s notion, peddled in his Budget speech, that the public sector must be cut because it is crowding out the private sector is the opposite of the truth in Tees Valley. Public sector work has kept the area from bankruptcy which has sometimes seemed very near. Private development is much encouraged and is growing, but in the past it has been thin on the ground. For government to slash both direct jobs in the public sector and business support for the private sector is, in this vulnerable sub-region, the economics of the madhouse.

By analogy with the Coalition’s attacks on what, in typical Tory fashion, it characterises as the unworthy poor, yesterday’s story emerged amidst a good deal of “poor area” bashing. Tees Valley’s situation was called “state dependency”. It had to wean itself off its addiction to public support; it had to put aside its crutch and stand up. All of this is, as with the meretricious bracketing of the sick and those unable to find work with benefits cheats, used to soften up the public to support or at least tolerate the Thatcher-like brutality these cuts will bring. All of it too is an insult to the hard working, loyal and flexible public sector workforce.

Just as it is obvious to anyone but the Coalition that the poor need more help not less, it is clear that there is still a hill to climb before Tees Valley’s private sector can again be the mainstay of its local economy, if it ever can. Industrial support continues to be essential and the public sector must still hold the bridge while new work develops.

The government takes an unbelievable risk with the livelihoods of entire hardworking communities, like this one, in accelerating public sector cuts to almost double the rate that Labour and most international commentators think sufficient to make inroads to the deficit. We must point that out and we must oppose it every step of the way.

David Miliband has won the coveted endorsement of Dennis Skinner, the veteran left-winger and chief Parliamentary wit who was among the MPs to nominate Diane Abbott.

The Skinner endorsement was predicted here on Next Left six weeks ago, during our survey of the David Miliband campaign:


The claim to be a "Labour Values Unity" candidate can be substantiated by surprising supporters such as Paul Flynn, who might have some claim to out-left anybody else in the PLP. If Ed Miliband has Tony Benn, then David Miliband's team are confident of a supportive endorsement from Dennis Skinner.


The news has been received sourly - "more in sadness than anger" - at Left Futures.

Skinner's support should help MiliD to shed the "Blairite" tag. However, Tony Blair's memoir suggests an alternative explanation, that a mellower Dennis Skinner had become something of a covert Blairite.


In later years, Dennis was one of my best (if somewhat closet) supporters. He didn't agree with any of my policies, but he liked somebody who whacked the Tories. Though I'm not sure he would thank for me for saying so, he mellowed and became a nicer person. In particular, he used to give me brilliant PMQs advice ...


Blair retails an anecdote about how Dennis Skinner took him apart at a post-election rally immediately after the 1983 election, at which Blair had first been elected.


But back then Dennis was your original firebrand. He was also a genuis at a particular type of left-wing rally speech and little new-boy muggins had given him an opening as large as your average open-cast mine. There's nothing quite like being utterly and publicly humiliated for teaching you a lesson ...


Blair wanted to warn the party about the need to catch up with the modern world.


Labour had lost touch. It had failed to sport how society had changed. I had two lines I was rather proud of: one was about Labour's attitudes being from the days of 'black-and-white TV'; the other was about the party 'simply repeating old adages learned on your grandparents knees' or some such ...


But he might have put it slightly differently.


I finished to a smattering of applause. The rest sat and folded their arms in unison. Dennis got to his feet. Still in unison, their arms unfolded and their faces began to smirk in eager anticipation. They knew what was coming. I didn't.

So he began, 'your new MP, supposed to be a Labour MP [particular emphasis on Labour], whose experience in Labour politics [again, much emphasis on 'Labour'] up to now inclides [here reading from a piece of paper with extraordinary thespian timing] Durham Choir School; Fettes College Edinburgh - the Eton of Scotland I'm told, [aside] not that I'd know; St John's College, Oxford [said with an especial sneer]; and the Bar [applause] and that's not the one you buy a pint in but one full of lawyers [pantomime hisses], your new Labour MP thinks our grandparents didn't know what they were talking about; that it's time we disowned them [and] tell them they don't belong in Thatcher's Britain [looks of horror of faces of audience]. Well, let me tell you, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, my grandparents were poor, it's true; were humble folk, I admit it; were, I dare say, a little old-fashioned in their principles of loyalty and solidarity but THEY WERE DECENT PEOPLE AND PROUD OF BEING WORKING CLASS'. The last words rose to a crescendo, an eruption of applause that lifted the roof off the place.

After that the speakers got up one by one, and you never heard so many heart-rending tales of the fortitude, heroism and near-divine decency of grandparents ..."


Blair writes that this changed the way he made the case for reform, and made him more cautious about getting too far ahead of other modernising voices: "I learned Dennis' lesson well. There is no point in being right about an organisation's failings if you have lost the ability to persuade them of it. You have to speak the language in order to change the terms of debate conducted in that language, otherwise you may be a fine example of a person who is right, but irrelevant".

Blair later writes of Skinner as "a really brilliant guy - first-rate mind, great wit, huge insight into people". However, the Skinner-Blair mutual admiration pact did not remain entirely covert. Indeed Dennis Skinner was reported to have become Tony Blair's "new best friend" as far back as 1998, in an Independent on Sunday report from Rachel Sylvester.


The MP for Bolsover, Derbyshire, a former miner, has become the unofficial link man between the Prime Minister and the so-called "awkward squad" of left-wingers in the Commons. Mr Blair regularly telephones him for advice and invites him for tea in his Parliamentary office.

"They get on very well," a Downing Street source said. "The Prime Minister has a very high opinion of Dennis - he's got a soft spot for him like we all do. The Dennis Skinner of 1998 is not the Dennis Skinner of 1988 or 1978. He's become a lot more constructive in his outlook and approach" ... "He may criticise policies but he doesn't attack the Prime Minister personally," a Labour source said. "He's not like the other left-wingers who seem to hate the party under Blair as much as they hate the Tories. He's an instinctive loyalist."

Whether we were targeting action to cut the gender pay gap, focussing on how we can help women from ethnic minorities to better integrate into society, or voting on ways in which we tackle discrimination against older women, the Tories were steadfast in their lack of support.

On the whole these weren't legislative actions that would commit additional funding or tie anyone down in red tape. They were about sending a political signal to the European Commission about what issues MEPs consider to be important.

And in their votes this week it has become clear that for the Conservative Party women's rights isn't one of those issues.

What is particularly worrying is that this seems to be becoming a political narrative for this government's approach in the EU.

Last week the Guardian reported that the Conservative-Lib Dem government was opting out of pan-EU measures to combat human trafficking. It's a prime example of a policy area in which it makes perfect sense for European countries to work together. No wonder human rights groups have been up in arms.

To make matters worse, this isn't even the first time that the new coalition government, only just 100 days old, has chosen to opt out of measures that would protect women from abuse and violence.

European Protection Orders are an idea currently being considered to ensure that women who receive the backing of the courts to protect them from violent attacks have that protection wherever they are in the EU.

The scheme had the backing of the Labour government but in June, quietly and with little media reporting, Justice Minister Ken Clarke reversed the UK position.

One of the interesting things about being in the European Parliament is that you get to see the different politics of the coalition partners close up. The Lib Dems and Conservatives regularly take opposing positions in the Strasbourg hemicycle.

So far, it looks like when it comes to government policy on women's rights, the Conservative position is winning out every time.

Today it was announced that Boris Johnson is to stand as the Conservative candidate in the 2012 election to be mayor of London, hoping for a second term in office…

Boris was a favourite when he occasionally appeared on Have I Got News For You?, but in City Hall, he’s not so funny. An increase of 20 per cent added to the cost of bus travel, cuts in the number of police on the beat, scrapping Ken Livingstone’s house building target are a few examples of his unsavory behaviour whilst in office.

In recent weeks, Boris has appeared to be increasingly against the path that his party is taking – hitting out against the cuts to the Crossrail project and seemingly agreeing with Ed Balls’ rhetoric on the economy:

“Whatever you say about Spheroids, he not only has balls. He has ideas. He has conviction. He has a grasp of economic history, and as he showed in his Bloomberg lecture last week, he knows how to mount a compelling argument.

“There was Martin Wolf in last week’s Financial Times, warning that ‘Ed Balls’s critique is right’; and blow me down, there was a leading article in the normally pur et dur Thatcherite pages of the Sunday Times. ‘An awful thought,’ ran the panicky headline, ‘but what if Ed Balls is right?’“

The Left Foot Forward team has compiled a collection of gaffe-prone Boris’s best, and worst, moments.

He has notably insulted people in the cities of Liverpool (commenting that the city was wallowing in “victim status”) and Portsmouth (accusing it of being rife with drugs and obesity), and the country Papua New Guinea, after the Spectator linked it to “cannibalism and chief-killing”.

His appearance on Room 101 with Paul Merton resulted in him wearing a fez, smoking jacket and enjoying a cigar:

Popping into the fictional ‘Queen Vic’ for a pint and a cameo role in Eastenders. View the performance here (one minute in).

His foul rugby tackle in a charity football match against Germany and falling over in front of the media in Lewisham whilst cleaning a river.

His side-splitting speeches - including the “whiff-whaff” speech at the Beijing Olympics – and insane interviews, like the tête-à-tête with Jeremy Paxman at the Tory Party conference last year.

Oona King, who is campaigning to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor, composed a blog on Boris standing for a second term, saying:

“But it’s neither funny nor entertaining that Londoners will be hammered by his Tory/Lib Government, hell-bent as they are on dismantling our public services, making people unemployed and hitting the poorest hardest.

“You get the impression Boris has no idea how he ended up as Mayor and now doesn’t know how to escape.

“My mission through our campaign over the next two years will be to demonstrate what a Labour mayor can and will do on entering city hall, being a real champion for this city and delivering real change and progress for Londoners”

Ken Livingstone also commented on Boris standing:

“I welcome Boris Johnson’s confirmation that he will run again in 2012 because he now has a record that means he can be held to account.

“For those who want to express their opposition to the cuts and higher fares of Boris Johnson and David Cameron the first opportunity to send a signal that they want something better will be to remove Boris Johnson from office in 2012.

“While Boris defends the bankers and polluters, I will stand up for ordinary Londoners and fight tirelessly to protect the capital from Boris Johnson and David Cameron’s cuts.”

Ken has also had a boost in support today, with Members of Parliament Lyn Brown and Malcolm Wicks coming out in support for his campaign to be Labour’s mayoral candidate for the London mayoral elections in 2012.

Dr Stephen Henderson is a bioinformatics researcher at the UCL Cancer Institute

David Willetts, minister of science, yesterday confirmed on the Today programme that the science budget will be cut. Although I don’t agree with this policy, I was not surprised. The decision has been widely trailed, with most university departments quietly bracing themselves for this outcome.

But in fact, I was more irked by the words of his boss, Vince Cable:

“…the bar will have to be raised. There was some estimates that something like 45% of the research grants that were going through were to research that was not of excellent standard”

I could pick out lots of awful research that my stupid, useless, lazy competitors, colleagues and compatriots were wasting their time and our money with. However to undertake this research, a panel of their peers must all have decided that their work was of ‘outstanding importance’, had ‘excellent potential for progress’, was ‘original’ and ‘internationally competitive’. These days you get top marks from the whole assessment panel or you get nothing.

For each of these empirically challenged incompetents who have got funded there are about four total losers who must have been worse - the success rate for Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Medical Research Council (MRC), or the medical charities such as Cancer Research UK and Wellcome is below 20 per cent.

It seems that this 45 per cent figure quoted by Cable has been obtained from the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) – an OFSTED-like report for university research departments. These give ratings on the basis of:

1: Recognised nationally;

2: Recognised internationally;

3: Internationally excellent;

4: World-leading;

5: You’re all great, carry on.

The best explanation I have read states that whilst 55% of funding went to grade 4 and 5 departments, 45% went to some that were only internationally excellent. On the Today programme these internationally excellent departments became in the words of Justin Webb ‘mediocre’.

There are problems with science funding by peer review. There is back-scratching, rival snubbing, a bias against high-risk ideas, a demand for preliminary data that can exclude young researchers, plus a huge workload for each successful or even failed application. No one, but no one has ever suggested to me that science funding was not competitive enough.

Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK said:

“Any proposal to cut the quality related research funding stream would damage the UK’s research base and the capacity for future innovation vital to our economy.”

So please Vince, cut the crap. If you plan to cut because you think the deficit is disastrous: then just say that. If you want 10 per cent of grants rather than 20 per cent to be funded: just say that. If you need there to be less scientists: admit it. Just don’t insult our intelligence.

The next leader of the Labour party has probably been elected. The majority of people who are going to cast their votes have almost certainly done so. A few ballot papers remain on mantelpieces or shoved onto ‘to do' piles. But if you're going to vote the chances are you've done it.

It's such a monumental decision, it's humbling that a tiny slice of it belongs to me. I feel the same frisson when I go to a polling station. Our federal structure has led to much head-scratching from commentators. It means of course that many Labour party members have more than one vote. They can vote as party members, as members of affiliated trade union, and as a member of a socialist society. For people who like joining things (the kinds of people who signed up to every club and society at freshers' fair) it is theoretically possible to have a dozen or more votes - as a member of one or more trade unions, the Fabian Society, the Christian Socialists, the Society of Labour Lawyers, and so on. This time round I managed only three votes (Fabians, Unite and the party); my record, I think was the six or seven I cast for John Smith.

All the evidence points to David Miliband as the winner (although I have a small stake at Ladbrokes on his brother). David will win because the party has listened to the arguments, and come to a view on what kind of party we should be. The big buzz is around second and third preferences. A mythology has developed that Ed Miliband will win on the transferred votes of people who voted for Ed Balls, Diane Abbott or Andy Burnham as their first preference. There is no evidence, either from academic studies of preferential voting systems, or from the telephone canvass returns from the various camps, that there is a strong pattern of voting for Ed Miliband in second place. The distribution of second place votes will probably mirror those of first place votes - which means that David Miliband will be ahead in the second round as well as the first, and might well cross the winning line early in the process. The ‘Ed wins on transfers' is a myth.

David Miliband, elected on Saturday 25 September will have two days to prepare for his first leader's speech amidst all the clamour for attention and demands on his time. It needs to be a speech which starts the long march back to government, unites the party, provides an alternative vision to the Tories', and starts to connect with the public. He could do worse than to cajole Phil Collins to help, the man described by Tony Blair in The Journey as ‘by far the best speechwriter I ever had'. It needs to exude emotional intelligence, and demonstrate empathy with the hard-working majority who feel ever-more under the cosh. It needs to set out the definitive position on the deficit. It must pick the right fights with the government, but avoid oppositionalism. It should tell the party some tough home truths about the road ahead. It needs a few great gags and the odd memorable line. I hope someone has started work on it already.

On 7 October, he will see the people elected by the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) to form his shadow cabinet, and allocate portfolios, including the all-important post of shadow chancellor. Miliband will have to shuffle the hand he is given. He will have to deal intelligently with the candidates he has defeated. He will need to bring on the new entrants to the shadow cabinet, including the surprise victors that no-one predicted. He should create a balanced shadow cabinet, from across the political wings of the party, and from different parliamentary intakes. We must hope that the PLP has the collective wisdom to choose the right combination of intellect, tenacity and guile to cause the Tories and Lib Dems the maximum amount of trouble.

Then, on 20 October, under a month since his election, he will lead the Labour party's response to the government's comprehensive spending review (CSR), when the full menu of cuts will be revealed. This gives Labour the ultimate platform to set out a different course of action on the economy - realistic, responsible, fair and in the national interest. A strategy for jobs and growth is the best answer to the issue of deficit reduction. When George Osborne promised a further £4 billion in cuts to the welfare bill last night, it was because he knew his policies are poised to send unemployment into orbit. Osborne wants to weather the self-inflicted rise in unemployment on the cheap. But Labour needs a convincing story to tell too on how, when and why it would reduce public spending. The ‘deficit denier' charge has currency unless we can show how we would cut out bureaucratic waste and duplication. There's nothing inherently progressive about high levels of tax and spend.

By the weekend of 23 and 24 October, the shape of economics and politics for the rest of the parliament will be clearer, and the five million voters that Labour lost since 1997 will have their chance to judge us afresh. It's not just a test for David Miliband, and the smart people around him. It's a test of the whole Labour family, and how serious we are about a return to government.

Our guest writer is Zoe Gannon, research co-ordinator for Compass.

This week MPs have voted in support of a Bill which would mean that next May the country would get to decide on whether they want to stick with FPTP (first past the post) or switch to AV (Alternative Vote). While this may not have been the choice many of us who support a more proportional system wanted we shouldn’t underestimate its significance. It is for this reason that on Wednesday Compass published a major report calling on Labour to back the Alternative Vote referendum and push for a more meaningful proportional voting system.

In Compass’ latest report, Socialism is Democracy, Neal Lawson argues that any renewal of Labour as a party of real power must be predicated on the alignment of socialism and democracy. Electoral reform, far from being an issue for the chattering classes is of central importance for any people or organizations that want to see a more equal society.

Lawson argues that:

“Democracy is the means by which the powerful are kept in check to stop them becoming more powerful. It transfers power from the wallet to the ballot box.”

By extension Lawson asserts that the Conservative Party are currently opposing electoral reform because they are happy for an elitist society to prevail.

What’s more, the report demonstrates why electoral reform makes greater equality more likely. As Lawson goes onto say:

“FPTP (first past the post), because its outcomes rely on the votes of a few swing voters in a few swing seats, tends to concentrate political power in the hands of the already powerful… PR, on the other hand, precisely because it makes every vote count, disperses power. The academic Arend Lijphart argues that consensus democracy produces ‘kindlier, gentler policy outcomes including greater redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.”

Indeed the pamphlet argues that democracy is, as such, both the means and the ends of a socialist society. It is now time, as Lawson puts it, to drop the myth of 1945 – that socialism is what Labour governments do – as strong Labour governments alone won’t get us there and instead embrace a more plural, more proportional system of government, recognizing that to create a more equal society we need to create a fairer electoral system.

Furthermore, Lawson explains why we have to accept that coalition government is here to stay and that a more proportional system is not only desirable but increasingly essential:

• First, the number of people voting for the two main parties has declined from around 97% in 1951 to 65% today;

• Turnout has fallen, down from 80% in the immediate post-war years, hitting 59% in 2005, before recovering slightly in 2010;

• A third of the electorate did not vote for the two main parties; and finally

• There has been a dramatic decline in marginal seats from 180 seats in 1970 around to only 86 seats.

The likelihood of securing big majorities and strong single party governments is being reduced by these decisive trends – the public are delivering coalition governments even under a FPTP system. It is now time for our electoral system to catch up with the public.

The AV is far from the perfect electoral system, but a yes vote at a referendum next year will show decisively that the way we elect officials, our democracy, is not monolithic – it can change and that such a change is both necessary and desirable.

Will Straw writing in Progress Magazine this September (‘Primary Lessons') joined the growing numbers advocating for the adoption of American-style primaries as the cure for anaemic local interest in internal labour party selections. However, citing Barack Obama as the symbolic ‘change' candidate that primary elections could unearth for the Labour party here in Britain misunderstands the mechanics of primaries.

It should be noted that had the Democratic party relied solely upon the primary system to choose their 2008 nominee, we would today be talking about President Clinton II, or possibly President McCain. Remember that Barack Obama's strengths in the 2008 season lay in two areas; raising unprecedented amounts of money from small donors and organising a powerful insurgent campaign amongst committed activists in the caucus states. Even then, the battle between Obama and Hillary lasted until May, as Hillary's name recognition and spending power was dominant in the larger primary states. Without the caucus states, which allowed the Obama campaign to harness the celebrity of the Senate's rising progressive star, name recognition and money would have decided the Democratic nomination.

The American system is uniquely American. The political culture that has developed around the myriad elected offices has no comparison to the UK system. With 500,000 elected officials, the US has roughly one elected representative for every 614 people. The UK by comparison manages with one elected official for roughly every 2,800 people.

The strength of the American system is that it provides prospective politicians with a development system as they progress from town to county or from state to national office. It is the links that develop between elected officials and their constituents, the retail politics, which are the strengths of the American system, whether primary or caucus not simply the mechanics of the electoral system.

While adopting a primary system could develop stronger links between Labour and local communities, the flipside of that coin is that it would also require great deal of money. Seeking donations can be said to be the central goal of every candidate and party organ within the 50 states save for the host of self-financing multi-millionaire candidates that seek to avoid a political apprenticeship through the application of copious amounts of money.

The power of money in American elections has always been viewed suspiciously by British progressives. Yet a primary system requires money. The important question is not how the Labour party will finance primaries but how prospective candidates will finance themselves.

The great risk in adopting wholesale an alien method of selecting candidates will be how it will further entrenches the role professional politicians, bankrolled by head office. Local candidates representing local issues may be quickly replaced by big spending candidates. Candidates will no longer be indebted to their local party for their selection but rather to the deep pockets that funded their glossy leaflets, direct mailings and radio jingles.

As every election shows, the UK requires distinctly regional voices to represent the demographic jumble that is modern Britain. A Labour party that is captured by London groupthink will continue to struggle to speak convincingly outside the M25.

The adoption of primaries may well re-establish the links between Labour and local communities. Or it could further alienate those areas of the population that can not afford to participate in pay-to-play politics.

Britain is a diverse nation ethnically, economically and demographically. The application of a one-size-fits-all system is not the answer.

In the world of work it is widely recognised that employee engagement is a valuable tool for measuring the effectiveness of an organisation to achieve a happy, effective and committed workforce. Engagement builds on established views of the employment relationship by recognising that it is a two-way relationship in which both parties have needs and responsibilities.

It is a recognition that if an employer can establish a deeper relationship with their employees the likelihood of those employees being able to connect their role to the wider objectives of the organisation, and thereby be happier and more productive knowing that they are contributing to the overall success of the business.

Many companies do of course pay lip service to employee engagement - reeling off staff survey figures in negotiations with trade unions that bear little resemblance to the stark reality that exists on the shop floor. Those who do get it right reap the benefits in higher profits and lower staff turnover - not something to sniff at in the current economic environment.

The employee engagement organisation the IPA believes that ‘collective voice is a valuable enabler to engagement and developing an effective employee voice must be a central part of any engagement strategy'*.

At a time when Labour needs to find its collective voice once more the party would do well to look at its own engagement with members and stakeholders.

In Southwark the newly elected Labour council (which has recently taken over from eight years of a Liberal Democrat/Tory coalition) has recently set up a democracy commission to consider how it engages with its residents and other stakeholders. Not only is this designed to improve decision-making but also to develop a greater sense of participation and ownership amongst residents of the decisions taken in their name. This is particularly important at a time when the newly elected council is facing attacks from the Tory/Liberal Democrat administration in Westminster who are looking to cut the revenue support grant to local government by up to 40 per cent. It will ensure that residents know the rationale behind local cost constraints and are able to participate in deciding the key services that are protected.

Nationally the Labour party needs to develop its collective narrative in a similar fashion. Faced with drastic cuts by the coalition government - the novelty of which has yet to leave the minds of many an elector - we need to not only set the context for those cuts, ensuring that voters know they are based on ideology rather than circumstance, but also develop a clear narrative for opposing them.

The leadership election has provided some opportunity for this and Ed Balls has really grasped that nettle in providing the context for the government's decisions, whilst also providing a clear Labour strategy to tackle them.

But we cannot restrict this simply to the economy. Following on from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we need to develop a clearer narrative on our relations abroad. We need to look at some of the new challenges our country faces on welfare reform, pensions and green technology, amongst others, and develop radical solutions to those that reflect our Labour values.

But the party cannot do this if it continues to engage only a small elite at the centre. As in the workplace, the party needs to engage its members - emotionally and cognitively - if it is to rediscover its collective voice.

Our members are the advocates of our democratic socialist values. It is not good enough that they face a policymaking structure that is so complex and convoluted that even some of our more experienced activists give up trying to participate in it. But it is not politically sensible either. Members have an important role to play in shaping our narrative and delivering that to the electorate. So they must be consulted and presented with a range of options so their priorities can be identified and reflected in our policy.

Too many people believed that debating policy was what put people off attending party meetings, when in fact it is my contention that it was an overemphasis on bureaucracy and regulation, which stifled debate. All the members I know want to talk policy and politics because it's that engagement that both arms them on the doorstep and makes them feel part of the great party that we joined. So we need to strip away some of the bureaucracy that burdens our CLPs. We now need our own form of democracy commission to radically overhaul our policymaking process. And we need to start listening to, and valuing, our members. 

Johanna Baxter's leaflet

*IPA Guide to Workforce Engagement

The pastor at the centre of the Qur’an book burning controversy has said his plans are “on hold“, saying “as of right now, we are not cancelling the event, but we are suspending it”, following a meeting with a representative of the Islamic Society of Central Florida and in the wake of a storm of protest led by President Obama, who said Pastor Jones’s actions would be a “recruitment bonanza” for al-Qaeda.

Yesterday, Left Foot Forward reported on how the media had turned the story into a big issue, something Tony Blair spoke about in an interview on Channel 4 News last night. Mr Blair, who described Pastor Jones as “stupid, disgraceful, disrespectful” and his planned actions as “unfortunate, counter-productive, plain wrong… shouldn’t happen”, said of the coverage:

“The responsibility for this lies with people who do foolish things, in a world in which, and I think this is the difference today, with the television and technology and means of communication of 30 years ago, something like this wouldn’t have the same impact.

“The difficulty now is, things like this become spread worldwide very, very quickly, they cause an immediate reaction, and then, if you’re not careful, things then start to spiral out of control, so, the truth is, there is that fragility, in the relationship between the west and Islam, but what’s important for Muslims to hear today, in the sense particularly from people like me, is this does not represent countries like us, and it certainly doesn’t represent the overwhelming majority of people of the Christian faith, who abhor this, who think it’s wrong, it’s disrespectful and shouldn’t happen.

“In one sense, all of this has given him enormous publicity, in another sense, if he’s going to do it and we don’t step up and condemn it, then people will try and use our absence of condemnation to try and make us complicit or agree with it in some way and that’s why it’s really important actually that President Obama and Hilary Clinton and everyone’s come out and said it’s wrong, and I hope that message, it’s actually more important that message goes out in the media in the world of Islam so that people see very clearly this is not something that represents true Christian thought.”

Watch it:

By Mark Ferguson / @markfergusonuk

Today has been mostly spent in the South West, as the candidates campaigned in the Exeter by-election, and prepared for the Labour in the World hustings in Bristol this evening.

ED BALLS and team were up early this morning after a late-night drive to the South West. By all accounts Lord Jim Knight, the driver for the journey, has a someone what 1980s musical taste.

First up today Ed was at Bodmin Town Hall for a meeting with members from across Cornwall.

Ed also met up with his ‘penpal’ 15 year old David Evans. They've been corresponding for the past three years after David contacted Ed about the challenges he faced at school as an Asperger’s Syndrome sufferer. Ed played the drums with David (who is a talented guitarist). I was excited about this when I saw a photo this morning, but the video is even better:

The big question is, does Yvette let him play the drums in the house, or is he sent to play them in the garage? Today's video also reminded me of this old classic.

Afterwards Balls and his team headed to Exeter where he joined the other candidates at a brief hustings before campaigning for the local by-election.

Ed also responded to BBC research on how government cuts will impact upon different areas of the country:

"While Nick Clegg now concedes that the recovery will be choppy, he and the chancellor are steering it into more dangerous waters."

"At a time when our economy is still fragile, and there are growing fears about the US and other economies around the world, it is a short-sighted and catastrophic mistake to make deep and immediate cuts to jobs programmes, support for industry and vital public services."

Before tonight’s hustings he joined CWU members in Bristol city centre to campaign against Royal Mail privatisation. Tomorrow Ed will be back campaigning in Yorkshire, before appearing on Radio 4's Any Questions from Sheffield.

ED MILIBAND was out campaigning with candidate Heather Morris in Cowick ward for the Exeter by-elections today.

On the donations front, his team were keen to stress small donations today in an email to supporters, saying:

"We’ve now built a list of over 1,000 small donors in this campaign  most of them giving £5, £10 or £20."

"Thank you — it is because of your support that we are neck and neck in this election and that it’s too close to call in these final days."

However, what isn't mentioned on their website - but was released in a press statement today - is the volume of money that Ed Miliband has received in donations from the Trade Unions. Perhaps, after today's Sun splash, the Ed campaign are concerned about being labelled the Trade Union candidate, a charge he firmly denied at a press conference earlier in the campaign...

Of the £328,000 that has been raised in total during the leadership campaign, £133 000 has been received from trade unions. What is perhaps most impressive though is the amount of cash raised from small donations - which totals £95,000 so far, including £39,000 in online efforts - more than double the amount that David Miliband has raised in similar donations.

Ed also released a video today of a speech he made at his old school, Haverstock in Camden, at the weekend:

DAVID MILIBAND announced his latest figures for fundraising today. In total over the course of his campaign he has pulled in nearly £450,000 of which £130,000 was raised in August. David said:

"I am very grateful for the generous support I’ve received since the start of the campaign. It’s humbling that people are giving up both their time and their money to help me in my bid to become the next Leader of the Labour Party."

"All candidates in this election have talked about the need to renew our party. But that costs money. We cannot pretend to be in favour of rebuilding the party if we are not willing to raise the money that requires. I am determined that the Labour Party will never again be outspent in an election."

He also attacked the Tory/Lib Dem cuts once again, following BBC Research showing that  would affect the North and places with the highest unemployment hardest:

"Many areas in the Midlands and the North, like Middlesborough and Stoke, are only just recovering from the damage done by the Tories during the 1980s. The impact on lives and communities was devastating and now the Tories are threatening to do it all over again."

"The chancellor must commit to publishing a detailed analysis of the impact of his Spending Review on different regions – and set out how he plans to ensure his cuts do not disproportionately affect those parts of our country least able to cope. The Tory approach that simply shrinking the state will get the economy growing owes more to ideology not economic reality."

David also back Rethink's "Fair Treatment Now" campaign, and was out on the Labour doorstep today in Exeter, where he recorded an Audioboo with local candidate Rachel Sutton.

DIANE ABBOTT was also in Exeter today, canvassing in the local elections, before heading on to Bristol for what is one of the last of the hustings in this campaign.

Diane also outlined her stance on the arms trade today. Abbott said that she opposed government support and subsidy for the arms trade; that UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organisation should be closed; that export credit cover should not be used for military goods and that private military and security companies should be licensed.

ANDY BURNHAM was claiming victory today his his campaign to save NHS direct. As we reported yesterday, Andy had received a letter from health secretary Andrew Lansley - today he has revealed the contents. Andy said:

"Mr Lansley’s own department confirmed to the BBC that it was planning to scrap NHS Direct – he now says all he wants to change is the phone number."

"NHS Direct is a much-valued service that saves the NHS money. This is a welcome climb-down and great news for the staff who work for NHS Direct and all of us who rely on it. It’s an incredible victory for the campaign to save NHS Direct."

"I hope Mr Lansley will learn a hard lesson from this. Making casual off-the-cuff comments about services that people rely on is no way to run the NHS."

By Martin Tiedemann / @mtiedemann

This weekend hundreds of Co-operative Party members gather in Cardiff for our annual conference. Debates, rule changes, card votes, late night manoeuvres in the hotel bar, receptions and gala dinners we have it all. But above all, Co-operative Party members will be united in our belief that we achieve more by working together than we do alone, and that co-operative and mutual structures can build a fairer economy and better public services. 

Since the launch of our comprehensive manifesto a year ago, much has happened in politics. The election saw 28 Labour & Co-operative Members of Parliament elected, with several new figures like Tom Greatrex and Stella Creasy joining longer serving parliamentarians like Louise Ellman and Ed Balls. Our Parliamentary Group of MPs and Peers is the largest it has ever been. Labour’s manifesto was the most co-operative ever, whilst the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives too put forward co-op ideas, only to ditch them one by one as they entered government, behind the convenient façade of the Big Society.

Our theme this year is co-operation at all levels, reflecting our campaign to take co-op ideas beyond Westminster to all tiers of government. Cardiff will see the launch of our manifesto for the Welsh Assembly elections next year. Scotland too sees elections, and we’ll be hearing from both campaigns. And the hundreds of co-operative councillors up and down the country will have a voice too, as we look at the exciting ideas from Labour Lambeth’s Co-operative Council and other Labour authorities like Liverpool, Greenwich and Stevenage. The contenders to be Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London will be telling us what they plan for co-ops too.

For the second year in a row, we are partnering with LabourList for our Conference weekend. From tomorrow, we’ll share with you the best from Co-op Party Conference, with contributions from some of our keynote speakers including Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell; new co-operative ideas from our activists; and a flavour of what our members are campaigning for. We’ll look at how co-operative issues have been visible in the leadership election and how they can help Labour win again.

Whether you’re joining us in Cardiff, on Twitter via #CoopParty or through our contributions on LabourList, I hope you enjoy Co-operative Party Conference this weekend.

We are delighted to publish the election results for the Compass Management Committee and Compass Youth Organising Committee for 2010/2011. Firstly we would like to thanks all of the candidates that stood in the elections and a big thank you to all of the members who used their democratic right and voted.

This is a joint posting by Left Foot Forward, ConservativeHome and Liberal Democrat Voice

The leading blogs of left, right and centre, Left Foot Forward, ConservativeHome and Liberal Democrat Voice have teamed up to publish a special, limited edition newspaper – Litmus – looking at the key issues facing Britain today, which will be distributed at the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Party conferences.

It may not have been the Internet election that many had predicted but websites and social networks played a greater role than in any previous election. The blogosphere, in particular, grew up. A medium which had sometimes been criticised for its trivialisation of politics became the place for incisive commentary, rapid fact checking, and serious debates on the future direction of Britain.

In Litmus, we look at some of those big issues; the economy, immigration, climate change, social justice, electoral reform and technology:

• With deficit reduction essential but myriad concerns about a ‘double dip’ recession, Labour MP Chuka Umunna, Lib Dem blogger David Boyle, and Policy Exchange’s Chief Economist Andrew Lilico ask what role can the tax system can play in getting us out of this mess;

• Public concern over immigration was a key issue during the election but business concern about shutting the door is currently making the headlines. Immigration Minister Damian Green MP, Lib Dem blogger Dinti Batstone, and ippr’s Senior Research Fellow Sarah Mulley examine whether Britain is full;

• The Copenhagen conference last year ended in failure but 2010 is likely to be the hottest on record. Climate Secretary Chris Huhne, Green party leader Caroline Lucas MP, and Conservative Home editor Tim Montgomerie ask whether Britain should lead the world in tackling climate change;

• With a national debate raging over the fairness of the Coalition’s Budget, Conservative MP Therese Coffey, Equality Minister Lynne Featherstone, and Labour MP Kate Green ask whether the Big Society can defeat poverty;

• A referendum on the Alternative Vote is due in September amid widespread Conservative opposition and concern from Labour over boundary reforms. Lib Dem Voice editor Mark Pack, Left Foot Forward’s Will Straw, and blogging peer Lord Norton examine whether electoral and Lords reform change anything; and finally

• Labour MP and former minister focusing on tech issues Tom Watson, Liberal Democrat peer Richard Allan, and internet entrepreneur Stephan Shakespeare each answer the question: Will technology kill bureaucracy?

We want you to join the debate, here at Left Foot Forward, and on ConservativeHome and Liberal Deomcrat Voice. Please send us your personal views on any of the questions, or post comments below. We’ll include the best in the paper itself. The deadline for reader comments to be included is close of play tomorrow.

Litmus will be available free to download from next week; more details to come.

By Joe Caluori / @Croslandite

As the ballot papers plop through letter boxes, it’s worth taking stock in what we’ve learned through this leadership election.

Firstly, the right of the party have to work harder than ever for victories now. David Miliband, unlike Alan Johnson, has actually run a campaign rather than merely turn up to the hustings and have a website. His hyperactivity and profile speaks to his strategic need to establish an unassailable first round lead. Despite early mistakes in appearing to be the "Continuity New Labour" candidate, he relaxed into his stride and settled into a script that worked for him. The ‘oven ready’ candidate.

Secondly, play the ball, not the man. Ed Balls has done himself great credit. Not only has his aggressive but forensic opposition to ConDem education policy made the case for a clear and prominent role for him in the shadow cabinet, but it has also helped throw off some of the associations of being a bullying machine politician. We need more Shadow Ministers like Ed Balls in opposition, and his early successes deserve a decent showing in the final tally.

Thirdly, if you're on the left, talk about the future. Jon Cruddas very effectively changed the 2007 deputy leadership election by talking about future policy on housing and taxtation. In contrast, Diane Abbott will, I suspect, have disappointed many of her supporters with her non-campaign and it now seems that putting Diane on the ballot paper was a misplaced act of charity by Harriet. This election needed a sparky ideas-based campaign from the left to make the other candidates clarify their positions and refine their approaches, but it didn’t get it. Instead Diane Abbott played a role that was half modern historian and half media commentator. She was obsessed with her ‘I told you so’ messages, and never presented a vision for the future.

However, after 2007 members are now wise to the electoral system and many will give her a first preference, for a mixture of sisterhood and protest against the centre, transferring to their real choice for leader afterwards. At the beginning of the campaign I felt this might be enough to hand Diane third place in the first round. Now I’m not so sure.

Fourthly, there's no real political space for a true believer New Labour campaign. Andy Burnham started well early on when he majored on his previous brief of the NHS, but like Hazel Blears in 2007 Andy's campaign started to fall apart as his support level ossified and he increasingly painted himself into a corner, with aggressive and divisive public statements. I suppose if his campaign was about carrying the torch for the angry right of the party into the shadow cabinet, then it may well tick that box, but he was never in the race, even for the top three.

I supported Ed Miliband from the get-go, both on the grounds of his politics and likeability. Win or lose, he has emerged with great credit from this campaign. His greatest flaw in many critics’ eyes seems to be failing to appear as much the ‘politician’ as his brother. It’s a fair comment to make, but far from being a problem, it’s what tipped myself and many others who would perhaps have been expected to back David Miliband to support his brother instead.

Through his humble demeanor and well thought out public statments, Ed Miliband has emerged as Clark Kent to a hitherto unrealised Superman, and that’s a thought that continues to excite many. Depending on his first round performance, transfers from Abbott and Balls could yet push him over the line.

There can be little doubt that David Miliband would make an excellent leader, but given the luxury of voting for a candidate who represents a paradigm shift from two dimensional American style presidential leaders to a fuller, more human leadership, I would always put my mark by Ed Miliband’s name. Every time good friends tell me that David is the smarter vote on the grounds of his smoothness and presentability, rather than his policies, I feel a straitjacket tightening around our political discourse, and I wonder about where, or perhaps when, pragmatism ends and we strive for the higher ground.